if the goal is having high speed transportation while minimizing cost burden to the taxpayer, palmdale and other similar cities would have been skipped.
likewise, i'm not going to stop using LAX because it's in Inglewood and not koreatown; i'll figure out how to make the commute.
if CA really wanted to build this right without succumbing to the pork granted to all these towns, CA should have probably taken a more incremental approach (eg. first build the cheapest, shortest-distance, and most environmentally-friendly path. then, build secondary rail systems that go through areas with high population density.)
california regulations mandate prevailing wages for all public works projects [1]. it affects the total cost because, the government should be looking to save taxpayers money by offering the contract to whichever GC that can get the project done in the fastest + cheapest fashion.
prevailing wages essentially maps out to be the _highest negotiated union rate_ in the same geography so the mandate basically shoots, in the foot, the ability for the project to collectively bargain.
you're right that labor is only a part of it. but part of the reason why the CA project saw huge rises in costs is because of project planning and scope increases in the planning -- both of which are politically driven.
part of the politically driven issues stem from NIMBY-ism but the other (arguably more heinous) part is how the cities can force the plan to be re-routed [1]. not only do costs rise and opening dates delay, the hypothetical "high speed" nature no longer rings true.
not to make this political but this is more political than not. people vocally want certain things (eg. prevailing wages) more than they want efficient costs so there's little incentive to make things cheaper.
a good case is always california's railway vs. florida's brightline. the differences are stark:
My understanding is that Binance can step in as a potential savior because Binance is safe themselves and the company doesn't fear a liquidity crisis themselves. But, their whole premise of consumer confidence is based off of SAFU[1] which seems to hold quite a bit of their own BNB coin[2].
Maybe I'm missing something but isn't Binance just insuring funds... with their own coins? (ie. what Alameda basically did with FTT tokens)
1. Couldn't Binance be subject to the same rundown FTX just experienced? / How could Binance realistically rescue FTX at all?
likewise, i'm not going to stop using LAX because it's in Inglewood and not koreatown; i'll figure out how to make the commute.
if CA really wanted to build this right without succumbing to the pork granted to all these towns, CA should have probably taken a more incremental approach (eg. first build the cheapest, shortest-distance, and most environmentally-friendly path. then, build secondary rail systems that go through areas with high population density.)